9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding exemption of income derived from letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing, or facilitating the marketing of commodities by an authority constituted under the law for marketing of commodities. Apportionment of expenses between taxable and non-taxable income of an authority constituted under the law for marketing of commodities. Analysis: The case involved a corporation established under the Rajasthan Warehousing Corporation Act, claiming exemption under section 10(29) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for its entire income. The Assessing Officer contended that only income from letting of godowns or warehouses for specific purposes is exempt, while income from other activities is taxable. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the corporation's claim, stating that the entire income, including ancillary activities, is exempt. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal focused on the interpretation of section 10(29) and disagreed with the Commissioner, citing previous decisions. The Tribunal's decision was challenged, leading to the reference of the matter to the High Court. The High Court analyzed the language of section 10(29) and referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 589. The Supreme Court clarified that only income derived from specific activities related to warehousing is exempt, not the entire income. The High Court applied this interpretation to the present case, concluding that the Tribunal was wrong in upholding the exemption of the corporation's entire income under section 10(29). Additionally, the High Court addressed the issue of apportioning expenses between taxable and non-taxable income. The corporation argued that if all expenses are considered, the income would be taxable surplus. The High Court acknowledged the relevance of a Supreme Court decision in Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 450 regarding indivisible business expenses. However, as this specific issue was not part of the Tribunal's order, the High Court refrained from delving into it, emphasizing that such determinations should be made by the Tribunal based on applicable laws and precedents. In conclusion, the High Court ruled against the corporation, stating that only income directly related to specified warehousing activities is exempt under section 10(29). The High Court advised the Tribunal to address questions of income division and expense allocation in accordance with legal principles and precedents. The judgment favored the Revenue, and no costs were awarded.
|
